It’s the Commerce Clause, stupid. It’s also about the immense vastness of Donald J. Trump’s election victory. The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court by President Donald J. Trump will be remembered as the brave and transformational moment it is.

Small minds will talk about abortion, the second amendment to the Constitution, religious liberty, and all their pet causes. But the nomination of Neil Gorsuch is greater than all that.

Archimedes postulated that if he had a lever long enough and firm ground underneath he could move the world. In that spirit we note that if we had a measuring tape that could circumnavigate the political world it would fall short of measuring the immeasurable Trump triumph of 2016.

That’s where we are right now.

Ten days ago our comments section noted an article about Neil Gorsuch with the speculation “This will likely be the next Justice to the Supreme Court.”

The article from SCOTUSblog (which we suggest reading in full) discussed Neil Gorsuch, how smart he is, how he is Scalia-like in his writing and wit, personal details, his employment history, his jurisprudence, etc. But we honed in on what matters, what really really matters:

Another area of the law in which Gorsuch has shown both his writing talent and his similarity to Scalia is in the application (and critique) of doctrines surrounding the so-called “dormant commerce clause.” These doctrines treat the commerce clause not only as a grant of power to Congress to make laws regulating interstate commerce, but as a kind of presumptive limitation on the power of states to make laws that either unduly burden or unfairly discriminate against interstate commerce, without regard to whether Congress has ever passed a law in the relevant area. Because — as its name suggests — the dormant commerce clause cannot actually be found in the text of the Constitution, Scalia eventually came around to the view that it should not be a thing, and refused to endorse any future expansions of the doctrine. For example, in 2015, in a dissenting opinion in Comptroller v. Wynne, Scalia stated: “The fundamental problem with our negative Commerce Clause cases is that the Constitution does not contain a negative Commerce Clause.” Although a court of appeals judge lacks the same freedom to disparage and/or depart from existing Supreme Court precedent, Gorsuch’s opinions also reveal a measure of distrust towards unwritten constitutional provisions like the dormant commerce clause.

For example, a 2015 10th Circuit decision written by Gorsuch, Energy and Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, declined to apply the dormant commerce clause to strike down a clean-energy program created by Colorado on the grounds that it might negatively affect traditional energy producers outside the state. The opinion explains that this result is consistent with the limited reach of the dormant commerce clause’s “judicial free trade policy” even under existing precedent. But while acknowledging that lower courts must take the Supreme Court’s doctrine as they find it, Gorsuch’s opinion shows respect for the doctrine’s “[d]etractors,” like Scalia, who “find dormant commerce doctrine absent from the Constitution’s text and incompatible with its structure.” Though Gorsuch’s personal constitution seems to require him to write clearly about the many unclear aspects of the doctrine, his opinion plainly takes some joy in the act of demonstrating that not only does the dormant commerce clause not apply — the doctrine also doesn’t make much sense. That same instinct is present in a prominent concurrence last year in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, in which Gorsuch singled out one aspect of dormant commerce clause doctrine—the Quill rule that exempts out-of-state mail order sales from state sales tax—as an “analytical oddity” that “seems deliberately designed” to be overruled eventually. This opinion aligned him with Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has called for overruling Quill), and again with Scalia, who identified Quill as part of the “bestiary of ad hoc tests and ad hoc exceptions that we apply nowadays” under the dormant commerce clause.

The dormant commerce clause isn’t a particularly hot-button issue, nor does it have obvious liberal/conservative fault lines. But it’s noteworthy that criticism of the dormant commerce clause is of a piece with criticism of the “right to privacy” that undergirds the Supreme Court ‘s abortion jurisprudence, as well as other judge-made doctrines that do not have a strong connection to the constitutional text. Again, Gorsuch’s opinions seem to follow the lead of textualists and federalists like Scalia in expressing great skepticism towards such doctrines, which allow judges to strike down duly enacted local laws on the basis of vague principles that cannot be found in the concrete text of the national charter.

The first step will be to destroy the dormant Commerce Clause. The second step will be to greatly trim the entire Commerce Clause which has been used by the federal government to claim jurisdiction over just about anything. That’s the meaning in full of the Neil Gorsuch nomination.

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will bring real Niagara level tears, not fake tears to Obama Dimocrats. President Trump with this nomination attempts to be what lazy Barack Obama wanted to be: transformational.

In the coming weeks there will be lots of strategies and tactics deployed around this Supreme Court nomination. President Trump will develop a courageous strategy and deploy smart political tactics to this fight. The Obama Dimocrats will only have tactics and chickens screaming as their heads are separated from their bodies, wings flapping in death.

President Trump has demonstrated immeasurable vastness of courage with his selection of Neil Gorsuch. This will be an epic battle for confirmation.

Trump could have selected Thomas Hardiman as his choice. Hardiman is conservative enough and his personal story (taxi driver to pay for college, first in his family to go to college) would have been hard for Obama Dimocrats to oppose, even though they would have. We suspect Hardiman would have moved to the left on the court and become another Souter. President Trump also could have selected William Pryor. Pryor is a staunch conservative but he also had problems on the right. Hardiman and Pryor would have faced a fight against Obama Dimocrats but nothing like what Neil Gorsuch will face.

Neil Gorsuch is young, willing, Oxford, and most able. He will need all his talents to accomplish the attack against the Commerce Clause which began and was then abandoned by the Rehnquist Court. All other sexy hot-button issues will be sub-issues to the great battle against the Commerce Clause.

It might not be sexy, but Neil Gorsuch, intends to trim the Commerce Claws, er Clause.

President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court will be Neil Gorsuch, a well-respected conservative whose legal philosophy is remarkably similar to that of Antonin Scalia, the justice he will replace if the Senate confirms him. He is, like Scalia, a textualist and an originalist: someone who interprets legal provisions as their words were originally understood.

Gorsuch is a Colorado native and the son of a Republican politician, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, who was a state legislator and then director of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Reagan. He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, after which he clerked for D.C. Circuit Court judge David Sentelle. He then clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993–94. The next year he studied for a doctorate of philosophy at Oxford University under the legal philosopher John Finnis.

After spending ten years at a law firm in Washington, D.C., Gorsuch went to work for the Justice Department in 2005–06. President George W. Bush nominated him to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico. His confirmation was quick and uncontroversial.

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump effectively halted nearly $200 billion worth of regulations, according to a new analysis.

President Trump has taken aggressive action to curb regulations in his first week, promising to cut 75 percent or “maybe more,” and signing an executive order Monday to cut two regulations from the books when every new rule is introduced.

The first move came in the form of a memo to all federal agencies from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, freezing all recently finalized and pending regulations. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, found the action resulted in stopping rules that would cost the economy $181 billion.

“On day one in office, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, signed a memo to all executive agencies imposing a regulatory moratorium,” wrote Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum. “This may sound like an extraordinary action, but President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, penned an almost identical memo eight years ago.”

“According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, this memo put a hold on $181 billion in total regulatory costs, including $17 billion in annual costs, and 5.5 million hours of paperwork,” Batkins wrote. “This moratorium freezes 22 rulemakings with annual costs above $100 million and 16 measures with more than $1 billion in long-term costs.”

The Trump administration memo stopped the publication of new rules in the Federal Register, withdrew regulations that were sent for formal publication so they can be reviewed, and postponed recently finalized regulations for 60 days.

The American Action Forum found 206 rules that are subject to the administration memo, including five major rules that will likely be scaled back or withdrawn altogether.

When Justice Scalia passed away suddenly last February, I made a promise to the American people: If I were elected president, I would find the very best judge in the country for the Supreme Court. I promised to select someone who respects our laws and is representative of our Constitution and who loves our Constitution and someone who will interpret them as written.

TRUMP: This may be the most transparent judicial selection process in history. Months ago as a candidate, I publicly presented a list of brilliant and accomplished people to the American electorate and pledged to make my choice from among that list. Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me for president.

I am a man of my word. I will do as I say, something that the American people have been asking for from Washington for a very, very long time. Today…

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Today I am keeping another promise to the American people by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch of the United States Supreme Court to be of the United States Supreme Court. And I would like to ask Judge Gorsuch and his wonderful wife, Louise, to please step forward — please, Louise, Judge. Here they come. Here they come.

(APPLAUSE)

So was that a surprise? Was it?

TRUMP: I have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the United States can make is the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. Depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions can last a century or more and can often be permanent.

I took the task of this nomination very seriously. I have selected an individual whose qualities define — really, and I mean closely define — what we’re looking for. Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support. When he was nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. Also — that’s unanimous, can you believe that? Nowadays, with what’s going on?

(APPLAUSE)

Does that happen anymore? Does it happen? I think it’s going to happen. Maybe it will.

Also with us tonight is Maureen Scalia, a woman loved by her husband and deeply respected by all. I am so happy she’s with us. Where is Maureen? Please, stand up. Thank you, Maureen.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Maureen. She is really the ultimate representative of the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, whose image and genius was in my mind throughout the decision-making process. Not only are we looking at the writings of the nominee — and I studied them closely — but he is said to be among the finest and most brilliant oftentimes the writings of any judge for a long, long time.

And his academic credentials, something very important to me, in that education has always been a priority, are as good as I have ever seen. He received his undergraduate degree from Columbia with honors. He then received his law degree from Harvard, also with honors, where he was a Truman Scholar. After Harvard, he received his doctorate at Oxford, where he attended as a Marshall Scholar, one of the top academic honors anywhere in the world.

After law school, he clerked on the Supreme Court for both Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. It is an extraordinary résumé. As good as it gets. Judge Gorsuch was born and raised in Colorado and was taught the value of independence, hard work and public service. While in law school, he demonstrated a commitment to helping the less fortunate. He worked in both Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Projects and Harvard Defenders Program. Brilliance being assured, I studied every aspect of his life. He could have had any job at any law firm for any amount of money, but what he wanted to do with his career was to be a judge, to write decisions and to make an impact by upholding our laws and our Constitution.

The qualifications of Judge Gorsuch are beyond dispute. He is the man of our country and a man who our country really needs and needs badly to ensure the rule of law and the rule of justice.

I would like to thank Senate leadership. I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once for the good of the country.

Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, you and your team have shown me great courtesy in this process, and you’ve entrusted me with a most solemn assignment.

Standing here in a house of history, and acutely aware of my own imperfections, I pledge that if I am confirmed I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great country.

For the last decade, I’ve worked as a federal judge in a court that spans six Western states, serving about 20 percent of the continental United States and about 18 million people. The men and women I’ve worked with at every level in our circuit are an inspiration to me. I’ve watched them fearlessly tending to the rule of law, enforcing the promises of our Constitution and living out daily their judicial oaths to administer justice equally to rich and poor alike, following the law as they find it and without respect to their personal political beliefs. I think of them tonight.

Of course, the Supreme Court’s work is vital not just to a region of the country, but to the whole, vital to the protection of the people’s liberties under law and to the continuity of our Constitution, the greatest charter of human liberty the world has ever known.

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.

Justice Scalia was a lion of the law. Agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench shared his wisdom and his humor. And like them, I miss him.

I began my legal career working for Byron White, the last Coloradan to serve on the Supreme Court, and the only justice to lead the N.F.L. in rushing.

(LAUGHTER) He was one of the smartest and most courageous men I’ve ever known. When Justice White retired, he gave me the chance to work for Justice Kennedy, as well. Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious, and like Justice White, he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. And if you’ve ever met Judge David Sentelle, you’ll know just how lucky I was to land a clerkship with him right out of school.

Thank you. These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine.

In the balance of my professional life, I’ve had the privilege of the working as a practicing lawyer and teacher. I’ve enjoyed wonderful colleagues whose support means so much to me at this moment, as it has year in and year out.

Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn’t make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what’s expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.

As this process now moves to the Senate, I look forward with speaking with members from both side of the aisle, to answering their questions and to hearing their concerns. I consider the United States Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world, and I respect the important role the Constitution affords it in the confirmation of our judges.

I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge…

(LAUGHTER)

… stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.

I am so thankful tonight for my family, my friends and my faith. These are the things that keep me grounded at life’s peaks and have sustained me in its valleys.

To Louise, my incredible wife and companion of 20 years, my cherished daughters who are watching on TV, and all my family and friends, I cannot thank you enough for your love and for your prayers. I could not attempt this without you.

Outris, that analysis is seriously flawed. Schumer has to block this nomination with everything he’s got.

The notion in that analysis, that Schumer won’t filibuster Gorsuch because the next nomination is the big battle, fails on many points. Point 1: this is the big battle. Point 2: If Trump gets Gorsuch on the court the other battles won’t matter (with the possible exception of a Kennedy resignation which would likely be conditional in any case therefore not that important). Point 3: the left loons that control the party will demand a filibuster or they will bolt. Point 4: Schumer cannot afford to anger the loony left. Point 5: Schumer is in a crossfire because the loony left forcing him to filibuster will lead to great defeats in 2018. Point 6: after the 2018 elections President Trump will get whomever he wants on the court.

For the record we don’t think McConnell will have the votes to kill the filibuster. We also don’t think Schumer will have the votes to keep the Dims united completely. Too many senators up for reelection will defect, but not enough.

What will happen? Schumer will fight with a filbuster but McConnell will win by stretching the legislative day. The most Schumer can hope for is to delay Gorsuch from participating in the court as long as possible. That might be enough to gull the DailyKooks.

I think it was said on Hannity tonight that there are already seven democrats that are not going to support a filibuster and will support a straight up vote…i guess the gop needs 8… we will have to see which way the wind blows

if they try to smear this man, the dims just keep digging a bigger hole for themselves…the party is so far left that they are starting to appear crazy…

Tucker had some young, idealistic male Dem representative on talking about how we must do our part with immigrants, bla, bla, bla…tucker reduced him to a naive foolish speechless boy…

caught one snippit of Pelosi at her town hall on CNN…and a (Lebanease?) Muslim man who supported Trump told her that Trump is right in what he was doing and I thought her head would start spinning around as if she had just gone mad…she evaded his question and just bobbled on…

what is wrong with the once great Democratic party…they are in some delusional time warp…

btw…

I thought this was a lovely event for Neil Gorsuch and his wife…AND their audience of friends and family

Donald in his simple language and his tribute to Mrs. Scalia was gracious and respectful…

*******************************

…and eventually you will say we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”…

1. Enforce senate rules which limit senators to speak only twice on a given question per “legislative day”.

2. Keep the senate in session without adjournment until every Dimocrat has spoken twice regarding the Gorsuch nomination on the very long legislative day (which might be a full week or more for normal people).

3. After every Dimocrat has spoken twice on the question of the Gorsuch nomination, proceed to an up and down vote.

4. Count the votes to confirm Gorsuch (which will probably be at least 59). Problem solved.

No need to kill the filibuster. Rinse, repeat, on every question the Dims try to filibuster.

Wbboei, the numbers you posted demonstrate the hypocrites on the left convict others of the “crimes” the Dimocrats commit. Schumer gets Wall Street money, then Schumer attacks Wall Street, Wall Street winks at Schumer, Schumer winks at Wall Street. Everyone in the game knows it is all a game.

Then comes Trump. Trump does what he promised to do. Schumer and his cronies are shocked Trump does what he promised to do. “Where’s the wink and the nod Trump?” cries Schumer and Wall Street. “You’re not playing the game by our rules!”

I’m almost positive that the “leaked” drafts of executive orders to WaPo and NYT are to send progressives, and Obama specifically, into meltdown, overreactions, and diversion. The most recent leak was how to cut off welfare to non-citizens, prevent non-productive emigres from entering as refugees, illegal aliens, H1B types for low wage jobs, and crazy people. Starbucks went all in offering the last jobs available to philosophy PhD’s instead to non-English speakers who advocate sharia. Silicon valley jumped and attached themselves to the refugee pause like they hire loons from Aleppo.

The language of the EO addresses importing life-time dependents for the tax-payers to support and why that is not an economic formula for success. The rate of welfare assistance for many classes of people imports of course was immediately denied in the pro-cheap labor drivel of the progressive media even though there are reams of data and studies showing otherwise. The so-called “high skill” visas are no such thing. These are the visas being used to fire and replace US workers, and many are required to train their replacements. While not slave wages, the contracts are similar to indentured servitude with no ability to negotiate earnings, change jobs, or even set or limit their work hours or conditions. Their “high tech” status comes from attending low quality tech or medical “storefront” academies in their home countries to get a “certificate”, and inferior “universities” which would be closed down in the US for incompetence and fraud. Their English language skills are abysmal to non-existent. US business is about to be exposed and they don’t like it.

In throwaway remark by some Trump administration policy staff to media, they said Jeff Sessions is “God” and no EO, policy initiative, etc does not start, go through, or get vetted by him. In horror the media apparatchik said “whadamean?” and they laughed at him. ALL of the regulatory roll-back, immigration crackdown, welfare budget cutting, setting up safe zones to repel migrant hordes, Wall building, Mexican remittance yanking, cartel chasing comes from 20+ years of Sessions policy research in the US Senate. Diane Feinstein spent 20+ years ignoring him. Then she put a hold on his vote to be approved as Attorney General because she said, in anger, that she saw his fingerprints all over this White House. This daft cow should have paid attention during the primaries, general election, and post election and she would have known that Trump ran on Sessions work with that special Trump zip jazzing it up. She has heard it all before and ignored it. For twenty years. Ted Kennedy “Borking” Sessions was the dumbest thing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party ever did. Cause and effect.

Early third party reports: “undocumented” Mexican construction workers are not showing up for work in the Dallas area. They are not answering their phone calls from their employers either. It is suspected they are heading for sanctuary cities or heading south for the border with all of their shit. In desperation to fulfill contracts said employers are having to hire black guys and “train” them. The horror!

Big business has paid for regulations to crush competitors for decades. Leveling the playing field is not something they necessarily want. Smaller businesses who can’t pay for the lobbying, political donations, legal bills will be more competitive and they don’t need that! President Trump is going after the various industries who have played this game forever. And their pols.

Admin
As a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, Trumps pro life stand is really the only policy of his that I don’t support. That said, I believe Hillary’s picks would have been awful, a continuation of the identity politics over competence choices. I think Sotomayor was a terrible addition to the court.

I had hoped that most conservative judges view Roe v Wade as settled law. But if I understand your post correctly Gorsuch might leave abortion rights to the states to determine. That could ultimately have a devastating impact on poor women in states that would ban abortion as they could not afford to travel.

I lived thru a time when abortion was illegal. My uncle, an OB/GYN in NYC started the first low cost abortion clinic in the city because he had treated so many sad cases from back alley or self administered abortion attempts by desperate women. Many of these women were sterile as a result of this botched attempts.

I do believe Scalia was assassinated in an attempt to have Obama get another appt. so this choice seems ultimately fair. I don’t oppose bans of late term abortions of a viable fetus unless medical issues are involved. I could also live with abortion not being publicly funded. But I do feel that the majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose and if Trump is ultimately responsible for taking that away, he will not get a second term.

I think your right optimist, I was thinking the same, although I do believe life starts at conception I wrestle with Government and women issues.
I didn’t always feel that way, was strong prochoice. I believe it’s a personal moral issue between God and yourself.
I made poor choices when I was young, probably still do but definitely put more thought into them now, but as a nurse, I know so much more and have seen so much that it’s impossible for me to believe otherwise.
I do believe the morning after pill should be cheap and available.
There are so many birth control options now, so much Sex Ed in schools and quite frankly youth is lazy and stupid not to take advantage of it. Youth has always been so, don’t have a great answer for it but nothing else has The ramifications that this does.

Re. The Dormant Commerce clause, was something I was going to say something about, but as usual you beat me to the punch.

If memory serves, it was a doctrine invented by the Stone court, after the switch in time saves 9, and it was something useful to a federal government that needed to find nationwide solutions to nation wide problems, such as, the depression and the second world war. But when those exigencies past, the doctrine was not reduced, it was expanded, in response to newly discovered nation exigencies, which may not have been nation wide but regional, and may also have been curable through technology and the discipline of the market place, and the nation wide cures adopted at that point were worse than the disease. Unfortunately, once the Court opened Pandoras box, it was very difficult to shut it down. Because when it was challenged by those who felt liberty and individual rights were imperilled, the oppressors always dragged out the dormant commerce clause to say that even if congress had not legislated in that area and even if the states who felt the bite of a problem had worked out a sensible conclusion, the oppressors in washington, indeed the very same people President Trump is goving after to recover what the have stolen from the Americcan people in a continuing process of self agrandisment, wealth, virtue signalling and power, had dragged out the dorman commerce clasuse to stop them in their tracks.

Now the smartest liberals will sense this threat, and will characterize this as a racial issue, or an hidden attempt to deprive women of reproductive rights, but at the end of the day, the killer question for their audience is this: do you want the federal government making the important decisions in your life for you, through artifices and devices like the dormant commerce clause, do you trust them to do so correctly, or, do you have enough trust in your own judgement to make those decisions yourself. For those in Washington who are convinced of their own moral superiority this is important. But for you and your family, is what they are afraid of losing, which is control over you, really a hill to die for?

My twitter page looks like a website that is being constructed – like I need to click some button to display the put-together “public” face again. I clicked on the twitter link that foxy posted above, and that person’s looked the same on my computer. I also went to Firefox (where it doesn’t automatically know my twitter) and plain old twitter looked the same way.

Just to show you how granular the broad sweep of federal power can get under the Commerce clause, there was one Supreme Court decision that held that in the aftermath of the National Recovery Act (Blue Eagle), and Roosevelt’s move against the prior Hughes court, that a farmer could not grow crops on his own land, for his own family, which exceeded the federal quota, even though they were for private use only, they would by definition not enter the stream of commerce. In the wrong hands, the commerce clause can be an instrument of tyranny.

And the tyranny I am referring to is not the hard tyranny of Castro, but the soft tyranny of an army of bureaucrats slowing sucking the lifesblood out the the republic. The model for this kind of soft tyranny is, of course, the European Union, which Obama was secretly plotting to marry up with a similar arrangement Soros was constructing here on these shores, which would be married up through a Trans Atlantic Union, which they were talking about in the Foreign Affairs magazine, the organ of the Council of Foreign Relations 10 years ago.

wbboei
February 1, 2017 at 12:25 pm
Just to show you how granular the broad sweep of federal power can get under the Commerce clause, there was one Supreme Court decision that held that in the aftermath of the National Recovery Act (Blue Eagle), and Roosevelt’s move against the prior Hughes court, that a farmer could not grow crops on his own land, for his own family, which exceeded the federal quota, even though they were for private use only, they would by definition not enter the stream of commerce. In the wrong hands, the commerce clause can be an instrument of tyranny.
_______________________________________________

A Green Acres episode was based on that ruling when Oliver was told he couldn’t grow wheat on his farm.

Roe v. Wade is no t nor should not be overruled. A strict constructionist like Gorsuch will continue in the Scalia tradition which will prevent the liberal membe s of the court to legislate their beliefs . Keep in mind, however, Kennedy is more of a centrist and Roberts single handedly enabled Obamcare.

Wbboei, BlowMeObama, thanks for the information linking the Commerce Claws and beloved comedy Green Acres (currently featured on some cable channels including LOGO). Where else but on Big Pink would such a linkage/information occur?

The linkage is very smart. As Wbboei wrote, “it was something useful to a federal government that needed to find nationwide solutions to nation wide problems, such as, the depression and the second world war. But when those exigencies past, the doctrine was not reduced, it was expanded,”

BlowMeObama wrote, “A Green Acres episode was based on that ruling when Oliver was told he couldn’t grow wheat on his farm.”

Oliver decides to plant all 160 acres of his farm with wheat in order to maximize his profits. However, according to The Crabwell Corners Conservation and Stabilization Committee since Mr. Haney only grew eight acres of wheat in the 1958/1959 season, Oliver can only grow eight acres of wheat this season. Mr. Douglas goes into one of his typical tirades. He calls a meeting, organizes a petition, and calls Washington to protest.

Mr. Haney in an unusually charitable gesture, sneaks in Mr. Douglas’s wheat seeds and is prepared to take up arms against the National Guard in what he refers to as “The Seige of Green Acres.” As it turns out, Oliver can grow as much wheat as he would like. It turns out that the “wheat penalties” law had been abolished in 1953, and the Conservation and Stabilization committee was just a little behind on reading their mail.

The show ends with Lisa explaining to Oliver how she is having a problem with the washing machine…It seems when she put in the table cloth, she forgot to take off the dishes!

You can tell it is Hollywood because there is a happy ending (other than Lisa’s dish problem) and the Commerce Claws is declawed.

There is a great lesson in all this. You two have probably found the only way to make the Commerce Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause “sexy” or at least explicable. While comic, the ability to explain the Commerce Clause and how it has grown and expanded like a cancer giving birth to the “dormant Commerce Clause” – which directly attacks the rights of the states to govern themselves – will be important. Most Americans don’t understand how the Commerce Clause has metastasized and now governs all our lives.

The fight against the Commerce Clause was revived in the Lopez case back in the early 90s.

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was a 12th-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The gun was not loaded; [snip]

The next day, he was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q).

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was “unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.” [snip]

Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that “section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.” [snip]

The United States government filed a petition for certiorari, whereby the Court has discretion to hear or to decline a particular case, for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.

To sustain the Act, the government was obligated to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power,[5] i.e. that the section regulated a matter which “affected” (or “substantially affected”) interstate commerce.

The government’s principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students’ being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation’s financial health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person’s economic productivity?

Indeed it is a “slippery slope”. Under the government’s claim, anything could be made to affect interstate commerce and therefore the government could control it. An artist paints a picture of a devastated New York after an atomic attack or a film-maker makes a dystopian movie and the government can claim it will affect tourism thereby the Commerce Clause is implicated – thereby the government can censor any creative work, book, critique.

The Commerce Clause has become a monstrosity and the dormant Commerce Clause is a rampaging animal that needs to be shot down.

This is how Justice Breyer defended the government’s use of the Commerce Clause in the Lopez case (preceded by the majority opinion reasoning:

The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:“ To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. [snip]

Justice Breyer authored the principal dissenting opinion. He applied three principles that he considered basic:

The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those “significantly affect” interstate commerce.
In considering the question, a court must consider not the individual act being regulated (a single instance of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e., the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools).
A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a “rational basis” for so concluding.

With these principles in mind, Justice Breyer asked if Congress could have rationally found that the adverse effect of violent crime in school zones, acting through the intermediary effect of degrading the quality of education, could significantly affect interstate commerce.

Two lessons from all this: Lesson 1: the Commerce Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause must be caged and destroyed, respectively. Lesson 2: don’t mention Green Acres if you are not prepared for a very long response. 🙂

Betsy DeVos is in some choppy waters and might not get confirmed. Republican senators Collins and Murkowski will not vote for her. That means there are only 50 votes for DeVos. Except that if Sessions gets approved before DeVos then there are only 49 votes and DeVos loses.

The solution is to delay the Sessions nomination vote until after DeVos is confirmed then have Pence provide the 51st vote. The other solution is to vote for Sessions then appoint someone to replace him real fast. That second solution is what will probably happen:

High-ranking government officials and those close to Governor Robert Bentley are saying, that Attorney General Luther Strange is strongly being considered to replace Sen. Jeff Sessions upon his confirmation as US Attorney General.

LONDON (AP) — Britain moved closer to leaving the European Union Wednesday as lawmakers backed a bill authorizing divorce proceedings and kept alive the government’s plan to trigger Brexit talks within weeks.

The House of Commons decisively backed the bill by 498 votes to 114, sending it on for committee scrutiny. The result was a victory for the Conservative government, which had fought in court to avert the vote out of fear Parliament would impede its Brexit plans.

Lawmakers also defeated a “wrecking amendment” proposed by the Scottish National Party that sought to delay Britain’s exit talks with the EU because the British government has not disclosed detailed plans for its negotiations.

During two days of debate in the House of Commons, many legislators — Euroskeptic and Europhile alike — said they would back the bill out of respect for voters’ June 23 decision to leave the EU.

Hate to say but Devon didn’t seem a good choice to me, too much homeschool, charter, didn’t have a good grasp of public schools…

Of course the public schools are out of control and it’s not about money, it’s about a failed and corrupt system with broken families and total disrespect for authority.

I don’t think we will improve too much in public education as long as there are 13 year olds having babies without fathers without family support, if there were we wouldn’t have too many 13 year old mothers without skills and babies themselves.
Thugs in schools. Yeah I would do anything to get my kid out of that system, must be terrifying, teachers beat up, murdered…

Thank God my daughter the Principal at a public middle school is in a decent district, but even with that, there are so many horror stories, drugs and hostile parents.
I want for her to get the heck out of public education.
Good luck…

I don’t know if there was a change in writers or they alternated between shrooms one week and vodka the next, but some of those episodes are some of the most hilarious comedy ever produced on television, while others were just kinda corny. As David St. Hubbins said, “[i]t’s a fine line between clever and stupid”.

Has anyone ever heard a convincing argument for not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year? I am aware that the Senate has no Constitutional obligation to consider a vacancy, also aware of the “Biden Rule” from 1992, as well as the “Let the people decide” argument, although none of these is very convincing to me for avoiding that action. Don’t misunderstand, I’m very happy that McConnell did what he did last year, although I’m not sure I would have liked it if the shoe had been on the other foot. I would just like to be able to argue the point with more conviction, which I am unable to do at this point.

Mike, I heard at the time that in an election year, the party that the people elect should be the party that chooses the next SCOTUS person. Since vacancies are infrequent, this allows the current mood of the electorate to be reflected in the Court.

Mike Marks, the “convincing argument for not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year” is called politics.

“Politics.” That’s not a dirty word nor an evasive answer.

Too often the notion that “politics” is a dirty problem is bandied about by people who engage in politics. We have always found that to be the case and we are always amused/stunned. Our entire lives we hear, from people who attend political meetings or are otherwise engaged in politics, that “I just hate all this political garbage, why can’t we just do what is right? Why?” The answer of course is always “politics”. That’s the way we are. We are creatures of doubt, emotion, rarely logic, and often our logic is a disguise for our emotion. That is why our systems of governments work they way they do. Our systems, replicate who we are. Does that make sense?

As to your search for a “convincing argument” and why “politics” is the answer we can only say that much like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the markets, in politics there is an invisible hand as well. What we mean by that is that if there was no politically convincing argument for not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year then the vacancy would have been filled in an election year. The people would have spoken up in outrage and the vacancy would have been filled. Politics.

The reason why the election year vacancy was not filled in 2016 as in 1992 was because the situation was a viable one. By 2016 Obama was a spent force. The counter-Obama zeitgeist was the dominant force in political life. If Obama had the backing of the people he could have forced the vacancy to be filled. But he didn’t.

If you want an answer that is not in any way “relativistic” or “circular logic” you will have to move to a robot world. In a world of pure logic the vacancy would either be filled, never occurred, or President Robot would have realized she did not have the force to have the vacancy filled.

Perhaps the question you should be asking should be inverted to “Has anyone ever heard a convincing argument for Barack Obama attempting to fill a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year knowing all along that he did not have the political support to get it filled?”

I don’t see him getting 8 dems , therefore, McConnell will need to defeat the filibuster via nuclear option. The left has completely lost it and as you see these well planned and funded protests are only going to get worse. Thankfully, Trump really doesn’t care. I was happy to see General Flynn put Iran on notice.

Your explanation basically boils down to “McConnell scuttled the nominating process because he could.” The political support to get the vacancy filled comes from the Constitution, which specifies that the president picks the nominee and the Senate confirms, with no mention of an election-year exemption. To more-or-less follow the “rules”, McConnell could have formally filibustered the nomination until after the election; alternatively, Obama could have made a recess appointment.

Once again, I’m glad that the nomination failed last year, but playing politics when there are rules available is a hard argument to make to the robot world residents that I have to deal with. I would like to think that if Trump gets 3 vacancies in his last year, that they could be appointed in accordance with the rules, as opposed to having their legitimacy perpetually questioned.

The leader of a mosque in Dearborn has confirmed to FOX 2 that a man who claimed his mother died in Iraq after being barred from returning to the United States under a ban instituted by President Trump this weekend, lied to FOX 2 about when her death occurred.

Imam Husham Al-Hussainy, leader of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn, says Mike Hager’s mom did not pass away this weekend after being barred from traveling to the United States. The Imam confirms that Hager’s mother died before the ban was put in place.

Mike Marks, really, “playing politics”? “political support to get the vacancy filled comes from the Constitution”? In what planet?

Consider: You want to cross the street. The light is green for you. You have all the right in the world according to law to cross the street. There are cars ignoring the red light for them. They speed by you without slowing down. The cars continue to speed by at 70 mph. You have the right to cross the street. Do you cross the street because you have the right under law? Obama decided not to cross the street because of the people speeding by.

But the car example is irrelevant. What matters is that McConnell did “follow the rules” you somehow think were violated by those “playing politics”.

Further, you misunderstand or misstate our argument. We are not arguing that “McConnell scuttled the nominating process because he could.” McConnell abided by the nominating process completely. So did Obama. Both played by the rules set down by the Constitution. Election year, middle of the year, beginning of the year, it really doesn’t matter to the Constitution. Obama Dimocrats want to deny Gorsuch an appointment in President Trump’s first year. First year! That’s politically untenable and they will fail. Is this first year denial Constitutional? Yes, but it will fail. Obama tried to get a nominee in office in his last year and the Republicans did what Biden and other Democrats did in their time in the majority – nothing.

The Constitution lays down the rules. The people govern. The Constitution only declares that upon a vacancy on the Court the president nominates (or not, the president doesn’t have to nominate at all) and the Congress will advise and consent, or not, (and further the Congress can advise and consent whenever it so wishes because there is no timeline in the Constitution).

Obama did what the Constitution states he has the right to do (although in this case Obama lacked the wisdom – he bit off more than he could chew). The Congress did what the Constitution states it has the right to do. Both sides abided by the Constitution. The reason why Obama failed is because he was a failed president. That’s politics. If Obama was a president with policies the people believed in the Congress would have been forced, because of the politics you so abhor, to consent to his nominee.

As you say, “Obama could have made a recess appointment.” Why didn’t he? It would have lasted only 2 years and it would have run over the Dimocrats like a speeding car in the election because the people would have objected. The Constitution provided the terms for the 2 year recess appointment but it was the governed that would have objected and made Obama Dimocrats pay a heavy political price.

The only hook you have to hang your hat on to object is the issue of an “election-year exemption”. Unfortunately that hook is upside down because it was Biden who hung it on the wall.

As to Trump and his eighth year, if he is a successful president, he will get vacancies filled. If not, what happened to Obama will happen to him and it will all even out in the wash.

My sister-in-law is a graduate from there. Met her husband from Spain while he was a TA there. Both are anarchists living and working in Spain as teachers at a university and who embrace every batshit crazy idea on the left including support for Muslim migrants.

The police response in Berkeley is reminiscent of the absence thereof in San Jose when Trump supporters attending a rally there were beaten up by these fascists while the police stood by under orders from the mayor.

ADMIN . . . . . . here is something I wrote, which is intended to shed new light on current events in a macro sense:

The Chinese New Year celebration features strange music, fire breathing dragons, and loud firecrackers bordering on the surreal. The spectacle of events witnessed since candidate, nominee, now President Donald J Trump emerged on the political scene is strikingly similar, and surreal.

Most Americans will perceive these as separate events and attribute them to either a meltdown by left wing loons who cannot accept the result of an election; a hyper partisan reaction from a Democrat party qua media who wagered and lost; and/or the desperate attempts by the political class to escape accountability for their neo lib and Keynesian disasters which have produced a $20 trillion debt, 95 million not working, broken borders, and 7 unwinnable wars; and who seek to preserve their privileged place in the sun.

Few will see it for what it really is. For trust me, these events are far from random. On the contrary, they are coordinated elements of a soft coup launched by globalists for the express purpose of taking down our president, the middle class, and the nation as a whole. They have conspired to move things in this direction ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. Brexit and Trump have put the skids on that. Consequently, the same forces in the deep state are pursing the identical “colors revolution” strategy they used to topple pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe during the 1990s. That strategy included the appointment of a charismatic puppet (like Obama), mass demonstrations, three word chants, flash mobs, media echo chamber, and manufactured crises. As Yogi Berra would say, it is deja vu all over again.

If you cannot imagine that something of this nature could happen here, I understand. It is not within the scope of your experience. If you would rather not think about it, that’s fine. It is depressing to think that former leaders in this country are capable of such treason. But if you care about the truth, and your future, and what President Trump is fighting against in his efforts to make America great again, then you owe it to yourself to pay attention starting right now. And that begins with a close examination of the record as a whole up to this point, including but not limited to the following:

• Soros prediction that Trump will fail,
• the false polling during the campaign,
• the attempt to undermine the electoral college,
• the massive protests on inauguration day paid financed by Soros,
• the pussy hat women’s march,
• the use of violent paid agitators,
• the false stories and lies promulgated against Trump by big media,
• the re-emergence of Obama as community organizer and chief critic of Trump
• the direct involvement of rogue elements of the NSA and CIA in this soft coup,
• the counter intuitive stock market bubble,
• the obstruction of the confirmation process,
• the boycott en masse of key committee hearings by democrats,
• the concerted opposition by senators in his own party, i.e. Collins, Murkowski, McCain etc.
• California’s threat of succession over the issue of sanctuary cities,
• the exodus of elites to places like New Zealand,
• the refusal of the acting AG to enforce an executive order no different what Obama,
• the mass resignation by top State Department officials,
• the failure by his own party to support him, per Drudge,
• the continuing misrepresentation of his statements by mainstream media,
• massive importation of Muslims without proper vetting,
• the media orchestrated polarization of country which makes the weakest minds unable to think.
• a significant amount of additional information which is not yet in the public domain

Clearly, this is not business as usual. It is unprecedented. It is in fact a soft coup. Consequently, the American People need to wake up to what is occurring, not be seduced by the bullshit, and target those politicians who are part of the conspiracy in the upcoming primaries with a vengeance.

The Chinese New Year celebration features strange music, fire breathing dragons, and loud firecrackers bordering on the surreal. The spectacle of events witnessed since candidate, nominee, now President Donald J Trump emerged on the political scene is strikingly similar, and surreal.

Most Americans will perceive these as separate events and attribute them to either a meltdown by left wing loons who cannot accept the result of an election; a hyper partisan reaction from a Democrat party qua media who wagered and lost; and/or the desperate attempts by the political class to escape accountability for their neo lib and Keynesian failures which have produced an inextinguishable $20 trillion debt, 95 million Americans not working, broken borders, and 7 unwinnable wars; and who seek to preserve their place in the sun.

At this point, Americans will see the situation for what it really is. Truth to tell, these events are far from random. On the contrary, they are coordinated elements of a soft coup launched by globalists for the express purpose of taking down our president, the middle class, and the nation as a whole.

The elites have conspired to move things in this direction ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. Brexit and Trump put the skids on that. Consequently, the “Deep State” is pursing the identical “colors revolution” strategy on these shores, that it used to topple pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe during the 1990s. That strategy included the appointment of a charismatic puppet (Obama), mass demonstrations, three word chants, flash mobs, media echo chamber, and manufactured crises. As Yogi Berra said, it is deja vu all over again. And the key players in the intrigue were George Soros (the old Soviet Empire is now the Soros empire, he bragged to a French journalist), the Brezenski team in the CIA, and bankers.

If you cannot imagine that something of this nature could happen here, I understand. It is not within the scope of your experience. If you would rather not think about it, that’s fine. It is depressing to think that former leaders in this country are capable of treason. But if you care about the truth, and your future, and what President Trump is fighting against in his efforts to make America great again, then you owe it to yourself to pay attention starting right now. And that begins with a close examination of the record as a whole up to this point, including but not limited to the following:

• Soros prediction that Trump will fail,
• the false polling during the campaign,
• the attempt to undermine the electoral college,
• the massive protests on inauguration day paid financed by Soros,
• the pussy hat women’s march,
• the use of violent paid agitators,
• the false stories and lies promulgated against Trump by big media,
• the re-emergence of Obama as community organizer and chief critic of Trump
• the direct involvement of rogue elements of the NSA and CIA in this soft coup,
• the unhinged accusation that Russia got Trump elected, by Clapper and Brennan
• the creation and promulgation of the dirty diary by Brennan and others
• the counter intuitive stock market bubble,
• the obstruction of the confirmation process,
• the boycott en masse of key committee hearings by democrats,
• the concerted opposition by senators in his own party, i.e. Collins, Murkowski, McCain etc.
• California’s threat of succession over the issue of sanctuary cities,
• the exodus of elites to places like New Zealand,
• the refusal of the acting AG to enforce an executive order no different what Obama,
• the mass resignation by top State Department officials,
• the failure by his own party to support him, per Drudge,
• the continuing misrepresentation of his statements by mainstream media,
• massive importation of Muslims without proper vetting,
• the media orchestrated polarization of country which makes the weakest minds unable to think.
• a significant amount of additional information which is not yet in the public domain

Clearly, this is not business as usual. It is unprecedented. It is in fact a soft coup. Consequently, the American People need to wake up to what is occurring, support the President, ignore big media, and target those politicians who are part of the conspiracy in the upcoming primaries with a vengeance.

One has to wonder why Australia refused these Muslim for up to 2 years, but we, America have agreed to take them.
I hope we don’t.
Australia has a Muslim problem and is dumping on us. Why an additional 1500, although I believe originally it was going to be close to 3,000, was going to be a problem for them is the interesting question.
Who are these people?